Re: CVS commit

From: Daniel Stenberg <>
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 08:00:57 +0200 (MET DST)
Message-ID: <>

On Thu, 1 Jun 2000, Peter C. McCluskey wrote:

> Does this mean the code freeze is over?

My personal opinion/rant:

I thought the code freeze would be good to sort the last bugs out and do a first non-beta 2.0-release. The code freeze would not last longer than maybe a month or so to sort out the big remaining bugs.

Now, time passes by and I can't see that we can maintain the freeze. This is an open project, I can't see how we can maintain a non-acceptance for new material this long, it will be a hard stroke for innovation and it'll make the project stall more than I feel it should.

I've personally already violated the code freeze by adding the 'spamprotect' option (although that is not yet in the CVS) which now has turned vital to me.

Judging from the almost total absense of bug reports (except for the base64 decoder, and the mail-converter inside href links) there don't seem to be any huge bugs left and I can't see how we can enforce a code freeze anymore.

How I would like to do? I'd check in all the changes we sit on right now, test them with a b30 release and then release the 2.0. While doing that, we accept new features and whatever that brings the project forward and in a direction that people seem to agree on. We do have a CVS server, why not make a branch? (we'd branch the b30-release so that we can fix that independently of the head-branch, the b30 would go for 2.0 and the head for 2.1)

I don't indend to direct this to any individual, I am merely stating my opinon.

      Daniel Stenberg - - +46-705-44 31 77
   ech`echo xiun|tr nu oc|sed 'sx\([sx]\)\([xoi]\)xo un\2\1 is xg'`ol
Received on Mon 05 Jun 2000 04:05:34 PM GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat 13 Mar 2010 03:46:12 AM GMT GMT